# discussion solves everything (3)

#### 2010-09-01

KS

**JG & SKS : What is Philosophy**

great discussion .

my personal view is that god is a super intellect and the world is his brain .

there is a logic in this brain : 1,2,3

1 means : the world is one .

2 means : 1 can have two parts . this or that (one or the other)

3 means : things are not only this or that . there is a third way .

**JG**

I hope you are wrong about the world being God’s brain, because if not, we are in trouble! 🙂

Kalle, what I am trying to communicate to Spiros is that his knol is not about Philosophy. It is about his feelings and opinions. This is not what philosophy is about.

While feelings and opinions are okay, these are not considered knowledge and in my opinion not suitable in a knol unless the same can be backed up by facts.

If I had read Spiros’s knol when I was 8 or 9 years old I would have been quite entertained. However, it is illogical, has no definitions and is free of any facts.

So once again, while it is fine to have these thoughts and opinions, these are NOT philosophy. This is not what philosophy is about. Granted the original meaning of the word Philosophy has also evolved. But when intelligent individuals talk about philosophy, this knol is not what they are thinking!

**SKS**

Gabriel you sound like a Kyriakos clone more and more each day. It is like I hear him now. Good to have you around, but if your only comment is at the “Spiros does not know philosophy”-level then I think I am just fine and in the right direction… Thanks again for the comments! 🙂

PS. See my answer to you in my comment in the thread below.

**KS**

I just spend a night to read JG’s knols .

best sentence : “knol should provide a feature that links his ideas to the original idea-knol (in this way, the ideas are related)” .

most impressive : the bio (you don’t consume pork nor blood ? hmm)

and last and least : [0.9] [0.9.] (krank-knol (last diagramm)) . is this a typo ?

Spiros, I think you cannot compare John with Kyriakos .

he never would insult you . he really means your knol and not your person .

John, thanks for your definition of philosophy: “all learning. the king of sciences.”

“all learning” is ok . the king of sciences in my mind is mathematics .

philosophy is the middle kingdom 🙂 between science and religion .

god’s brain : what do you think about “god’s computer” ?

**JG**

Spiros: Yes, I believe this is what Kyriakos was trying to tell you and he is correct: “You don’t know what philosophy is”. But not only philosophy, you also bash logic which is the science of reasoning.

Kalle: I meant to write: “Philosophy is all learning. The King of Knowledge.”.

Of course mathematics is the queen of sciences – Gauss

See my most recent knol called “What is Philosophy?”. I think it is short and sweet.

**SKS**

So the field in which you can create and define whatever you want is the queen of sciences? Interesting… I wander what opinion you have of Godel’s ontological proof…

**KS**

John,

reading your knols I had 2 questions so far :

1. is 0.999…= 1 ? your tree says no, but if we say, 0.333…= 1/3 then why we can’t say 0.999…= 1?

2. means “countable” the same as “programmable” ? then you can surely touch numbers more than one time by counting them .

**JG**

Spiros: So the field in which you can create and define whatever you want is the queen of sciences?

JG: Are you reading my comments or someone else’s?

Kalle:

1. That’s right. The big little word “IF”. IF you say 0.333…=1/3, then you can say 0.999…=1.

The thing is you must first be able to “say” that 0.333…=1/3.

Read my knol called “How we got radix systems.” I don’t care to get into any further discussion about the 0.999…/1 argument.

2. Nein. Zählbare bedeutet nicht dasselbe wie programmierbar. Ich habe keine Ahnung was du meinst, wenn du sagst “touch numbers more than one time …”

**KS**

@ JG

1. this becomes a little fuzzy to me .

do you mean that 1/3 is not represented in your tree ?

that coudn’t be .

but the only representation I can see is 0.333… .

so, if 0.333… is the represantation of 1/3 then 0.999… is the represantation of 1 .

I am not a trained mathematician . if you don’t want to discuss it, it’s ok for me .

2. I meant to write: if it is countable then it is programmable (right ?) .

“to touch” means “to visit” . in the sense of “exactly one node from each level of the tree is visited exactly once.”

dein deutsch ist zu gut, um eine übersetzung zu sein . where did you learn it ?

@ SK

a quote of JG : rules are for people, not people for rules.

perhaps we can say : “logic” are special rules .

then we only need to unify about the rules .

#### 2010-09-02

**SKS**

John, in mathematical logic you can define whatever you want and produce mathematics.

Correct or not correct?

#### 2010-09-03

**JG**

Spiros: Not correct. See my knol called What does well-defined mean?

Kalle: Every real number in the interval (0,1) is represented according to most mathematicians. I do not agree that 1/3 is represented in the tree. All the numbers in my tree are rational numbers. I don’t know of any other kind of number, do you? Real numbers are approximated by rational numbers. In the case of incommensurable numbers, all we know is that these can be approximated but they are not numbers that can be measured. Only rational numbers can be measured in a well-defined method.

Countable/programmable: It all depends on what you mean when you say “countable.” I would agree that the real numbers are not countable because they are not well-defined. However, mathematicians claim that real numbers are well-defined. They also claim that my tree contains every real number. If this is the case, then the real numbers are countable. See my knol called: Mark Chu Carroll who is a crank calls me a crank and my original knol on this topic called Are the real numbers uncountable?

Another interesting knol would be Are the real numbers well-defined?

Logic: Logic is not about rules. Logic is the science of correct reasoning.

Philosophy: The beginning of all knowledge. It’s primary tool is logic.

Science: A child of philosophy. Through science (hypothesis, experimentation and observation) it is possible to sometimes confirm or reject conclusions reached using pure logic, especially those conclusions regarding the physical universe.

#### 2010-09-04

**KS**

John,

you wrote : “I do not agree that 1/3 is represented in the tree. All the numbers in my tree are rational numbers.”

does that mean, your tree does not represent all rational numbers ?

(a rational number is any number that can be expressed as the quotient a/b of two integers, with the denominator b not equal to zero.)

personally I agree that 1.333… is not 1/3 .

if you write a programme : { for (i = 1 to n) a = 1/3 }

and another programme : {a = 0; for (i = 1 to n) a = a + 3/10^i }

you get a line and a curve . the curve more and more approaches the line but will never touch it .

so we have always two lines, that is two different a .

but for many cases that is sufficient .

if I only want to know which number is bigger : 125/34 or 100/33, I better write : 3.6.. or 3.0..

see http://knol.google.com/k/kalle-schwarz/contest-a/1m7f8ad2dgh39/330

logic and rules : perhaps we can say : logic is the rule that things must be well defined .

philosophy : as you said, philosophy has evolved .

today philosophy means that the historical appearance of religion, philosophy and science is altogether only one side of the coin . it’s the way how MEN looked at the world and it’s called patriarchy . this is very one-sided and not the universal view we need today .

**JG**

Kalle: “does that mean, your tree does not represent all rational numbers ?”

JG: Yes, because it is impossible to represent 1/3 finitely (infinite “representation” using … is a fallacy) in base 10. However, 1/3 can be represented finitely in many other bases:

Base 3: 0.1

Base 6: 0.2

Base 9: 0.3 etc.

Note that in my arguments with other academics, I assume that my tree does represent all rational numbers because this does not affect the line of reasoning which proves their conclusions false. I even assume a stronger statement that they require, that is, the tree contains all real numbers in (0,1).

If one accepts an academic definition of number, that is, the limit (whatever a limit means because no one knows what kind of number it is unless it is rational) of a Cauchy sequence, then 0.333… = 1/3 and 0.999… = 1. However, these same academics compare “numbers” differently. For example, they are readily able to compare pi (3.14….) by its partial sums but this is not acceptable in the case of 0.999… and 1 where they know the limits are rational. This, in spite of the fact that 0.999… is always less than 1 if the partial sums of 0.999… are compared with 1.

My Knols explain more:

How we got radix systems.

Exactly what is an irrational number?

Is 0.999 equal to 1?

Although the ancient Greeks (who invented rational numbers – see knol called Construction of rational numbers (c) 2010) understood radix systems, the Greeks never assumed or claimed that all rational numbers could be represented in a given radix system.

Kalle: logic and rules : perhaps we can say : logic is the rule that things must be well defined .

JG: No. Logic has a definition – it is the science (you can use the word discipline if you prefer) of correct reasoning. Nothing about rules here (*). Correct reasoning as I explained in my knol called What is Philosophy, is possible if and only if the objects it deals with are well-defined.

Philosophy: It is the beginning of all knowledge. Philosophy describes the process of generating new knowledge through use of logic which is the most primitive of all sciences.

If you must have a rule, then the only rule is that your concepts or objects must be WELL-DEFINED.

See my old comment to Spiros:

JG: Nonsense. Although logic was introduced formally by Aristotle, its meaning has just about changed completely as I explained earlier – it is not based on a fixed set of rules. It is “the science of correct reasoning”. In other words my friend, the rules may be different depending on who exercises the logic. To quote you: “Is your way (or Aristotle’s way) the only way?”

(*) You seem to be obsessed with rules. There may be several methods that can be used in logic to arrive at the same sound conclusion. Why do you insist on calling these methods “rules”? And what makes you think they must be the same? A rule is a prescribed guide or principle for some action to follow. In logic it is impossible to have a prescribed set of rules for everything. Logic is not about rules, it is about reasoning. Reasoning “correctly” – which is only possible if concepts are well-defined.

#### 2010-09-05

KS

**ranking will be determined on Sept. 1**

as KVSS is still a member of this board we at least need his rank before closing .

so I request him to take position . that is, whether he wants to be a member or not.

… three days later :

KVSS didn’t react . so the contest is terminated .

prizes till now are : w 300 (1.), w 200 (2.), w 100 (3.) from the KAF whuffie account

and perhaps some money from SK .

@ SK

you again asked what to do with your money .

first I would recommend that you immediately start a knol about this topic, where we may discuss it .

you may invite me as a co-author .

#### 2010-09-06

**SKS**

**What is Philosophy**

If you start understanding that the logic of Aristotle or your logic or my logic are not more valid than any other logic, then you are in a very good position to start understanding this knol… Nice…

**KS**

JG : Correct reasoning … is only possible if concepts are well-defined.

– I agree .

but as a programmer you know that programmes (which are concepts) must be refactored again and again until they are well-defined .

refactoring again and again is the way every child is learning . and we must learn this on knol too .

doing this we will also have no problems with my logic, your logic and the logic of others .

we just have to find o u r logic .

— the only rule I’m obsessed with is the golden rule .

**KS**

just for information :

I archive some of my comments. because of the context I archive also other comments.

## Leave a Reply